I think very few of these are comparisons for or against Stanton due to age and also sustained performance level prior to the massive contract.

Imo anyone making an argument against getting Stanton is crazy. He is an elite player. A no doubter although I guess some will debate that. If the Twins could get him without giving up Sano or Berrios then sign me up. Of course there are concerns like the injury history (fastballs to the face) and 10 more years of guaranteed money with an opt out.

The age he was when he signed has absolutely zero relevance.He is 28 now and has 10 years left on his contract which takes him well past his prime for the last 4-5 years of the contract.History is very clear that any such deal has a high probability of failing. IMO pursuing practices that have proven to have a high degree of failure is incompetent.

Crazy is not how I would describe management practices that avoiding trading premium assets for a player who's contract will cripple the club for 4-5 years if his performance is similar to almost every other player who ever signed such a contract.How anyone who looks at the list I just put up and determines this is a no brainer is hard to imagine. I would not sign him as a FA and I sure as he## would not give up premium assets.If I had the Yankees or Dodgers revenue, I might consider it if the prospects required did not include any B+ or better prospects.

Allocating this amount of available payroll would also make it extremely difficult to address our greatest weakness (pitching).On that merit alone trading for Stanton would be incompetent.

The age he was when he signed has absolutely zero relevance.He is 28 now and has 10 years left on his contract which takes him well past his prime for the last 4-5 years of the contract.History is very clear that any such deal has a high probability of failing. IMO pursuing practices that have proven to have a high degree of failure is incompetent.

Crazy is not how I would describe management practices that avoiding trading premium assets for a player who's contract will cripple the club for 4-5 years if his performance is similar to almost every other player who ever signed such a contract.How anyone who looks at the list I just put up and determines this is a no brainer is hard to imagine. I would not sign him as a FA and I sure as he## would not give up premium assets.If I had the Yankees or Dodgers revenue, I might consider it if the prospects required did not include any B+ or better prospects.

Allocating this amount of available payroll would also make it extremely difficult to address our greatest weakness (pitching).On that merit alone trading for Stanton would be incompetent.

you had me until “clearly below top tier”. There’s too much talk over a “clearly below top tier” player on that gigantic contract with a full no trade clause, that he is not considered by many/most GMs as “top tier”https://www.fanragsp...y-want-stanton/
He’s 28 and posted a 6.9 fWAR.

Stanton is a very good player, but he’s not at the level of Mike Trout, Manny Machado, Carlos Correa or several other players. He just had a very good year, but so did Anthony Rendon, who is a little younger and has a more diverse skill set, and nobody’s saying Rendon is at the top tier. Stanton’s contract is back-end loaded so it could turn into Cabrera’s or Pujols’. People may be willing to take it, but it would be shocking if people took the contract and traded four top cost-controlled players.

Because I heard an interview with Ken Rosenthal.He said there were four teams he thought Stanton would approve for a trade.(Dodgers | Yankees | Red Sox and I think the 4th one is Chicago.Obviously, he is speculating but he is a little more connected than the rest of us.

The Pohlad family isn't taking on that kind of contract nor should the Twins mortgage the future on him. This is a pipe dream. Improve pitching. The offense is good and we have solid prospects coming up.

Our those 4 players really the future of the Twins? Sure if they all have careers we hope we would have way over paid, but as of now only Kepler has really proved anything and Kirillkoff is years off. Romero and Gordon are the lottery tickets. But I would be willing to take that chance. Unless of course we can use some of them for a starting pitcher.

Our those 4 players really the future of the Twins? Sure if they all have careers we hope we would have way over paid, but as of now only Kepler has really proved anything and Kirillkoff is years off. Romero and Gordon are the lottery tickets. But I would be willing to take that chance. Unless of course we can use some of them for a starting pitcher.

You don't give away 21 years of control of young talent. It's a huge overpay. Kepler is a good ML player now and Gordon and Romero are top 100 prospects set to contribute next year, if needed. Kiriloff is farther away, of course. You trade those guys to grab a guy whose contract would eat up a third of the teams payroll for the next decade? Not a great idea.

For a little perspective, the difference between Kepler’s salary and Stanton’s is more than the expected salary for Yu Darvish. So, putting aside the risk that you get stuck with Stanton’s later years at $30M per year and the proposals of including several other pieces, a one-for-one trade might not just be Kepler and his projected 1.7 WAR for Stanton and his projected 5.4 WAR, but the swap of salaries could also preclude the possibility to get an ace.

yeah, cannot say I see this. If the Marlins were giving him away, maybe. He would be a short term upgrade but a major albatross long term. No way I give up prospects to upgrade there. We have far greater needs on the mound.

Stanton is a very good player, but he’s not at the level of Mike Trout, Manny Machado, Carlos Correa or several other players. He just had a very good year, but so did Anthony Rendon, who is a little younger and has a more diverse skill set, and nobody’s saying Rendon is at the top tier. Stanton’s contract is back-end loaded so it could turn into Cabrera’s or Pujols’. People may be willing to take it, but it would be shocking if people took the contract and traded four top cost-controlled players.

as I said, you had me. I agree that the Twins shouldn’t trade for Stanton because his contract would preclude the FO from going after pitching while the offense is less of a concern than pitching.

My quibble is that Stanton is somehow not worth his contract. He absolutely is worth it. He’s just a bad fit for this team.

yeah, cannot say I see this. If the Marlins were giving him away, maybe. He would be a short term upgrade but a major albatross long term. No way I give up prospects to upgrade there. We have far greater needs on the mound.

Isn't he expected to opt out in 3 years? That's not a huge albatross.

Not that I endorse trading for him. We need pitching more than offense.

The age he was when he signed has absolutely zero relevance.He is 28 now and has 10 years left on his contract which takes him well past his prime for the last 4-5 years of the contract.History is very clear that any such deal has a high probability of failing. IMO pursuing practices that have proven to have a high degree of failure is incompetent.

Crazy is not how I would describe management practices that avoiding trading premium assets for a player who's contract will cripple the club for 4-5 years if his performance is similar to almost every other player who ever signed such a contract.How anyone who looks at the list I just put up and determines this is a no brainer is hard to imagine. I would not sign him as a FA and I sure as he## would not give up premium assets.If I had the Yankees or Dodgers revenue, I might consider it if the prospects required did not include any B+ or better prospects.

Allocating this amount of available payroll would also make it extremely difficult to address our greatest weakness (pitching).On that merit alone trading for Stanton would be incompetent.

And the comparison still fails since he is 28 now and 3-5 years younger than all but 2 players on your list. And substantially better than many of them.

Stanton is an elite player in his prime and you are adding him to a team that is ready to go. If you have a chance to add a 5-6+ WAR player then you do it. There is no guarantee that the Twins can sign any of their young stars to long extensions so the window is the next 4-5 years which Stanton should remain at a minimum at an above average level.

Adding him does require ownership to increase payroll substantially in order to address the pitching though. This type of move can't happen without the other move.

And Kepler is a nice player and all but he put up a 1.2 WAR at age 24 with signs of a LHH problem. Finding players at his level are possible. Romero has upside but he also has Alex Meyer downside. Prospects fail. Even top 100 ones.

Is 20162017 2018 the year that a good pitching prospect is truly blocked by 5 good pitchers in the starting rotation?

Offseason (noun) - a time to propose trades assuming opposing GM's can't do the same basic analysis

You don't give away 21 years of control of young talent. It's a huge overpay. Kepler is a good ML player now and Gordon and Romero are top 100 prospects set to contribute next year, if needed. Kiriloff is farther away, of course. You trade those guys to grab a guy whose contract would eat up a third of the teams payroll for the next decade? Not a great idea.

The Twins offense isn't the problem. Fix pitching.

I said if they can be used for pitching that is what they should do.

But there isn't 21 years of control, only Kepler has made the majors and Gordon and Romero are 50/50 of making the majors and being anything more than fillers. The money could be an issue, but aren't we going to have that problem with Sano, Berrios and Buxton?

Apparently you are not able to understand the root of the problem which is length of these deals and that these deals all go well beyond the player’s prime. The teams hoped they would not pay for several years of just above replacement level but that is rarely the case. Stanton's deal is 5-8 years longer than all of these deals with the exception of ARod.Therefore, even though he was younger when he signed it, he will still be well past his prime for several years.Your focus on the fact he was younger when he signed the deal completely ignores the failure points associated with these deals.Perhaps more simply you have ignored the realities of the additional length of the deal.

You have also ignored that all of these players had equivalent WAR and most of them had higher WARs when they were signed.So, you are simply ignoring the potential for failure because it does not suite your argument.You are also ignoring how damaging it would be for a team with the Twins revenue to have a dead contract of this size if he fails.If that's not enough, you are also ignoring there will be better players next year that won't cost us top prospects.

No, I understand perfectly. You will make a case against signing or trading for any free agent (almost always 30+) or trading for any veteran player.

The key here is to get a player on a long contract that includes his age 28-32 seasons (your selection of players back this up) since that will likely give you substantial excess value. Even if you consider Stanton only to be a 5+ WAR/yr player then he is worth 40+M/yr. I think he definitely has 3-4 seasons of 5+ WAR left and that is why I choose this deal.

I find it convenient that you left out Miguel Cabrera's 2008 contract. Mauer's 2009 and ARod's 2008 contract were included.

For some reason you consider Ryan Howard and Ellsbury comparable which they are not even remotely close to. Howard average 1.3WAR for the two seasons before signing his ridiculous contract. Ellsbury's value was based on his defensive. I wouldn't even consider using Hamilton as an argument against signing any kind of FA due to his past.

Let's throw out those 3 comparisons out and you are left with

Tex - the early part of his contract has justified the later part even if he sucks now

Mauer - he was great until he suffered a concussion and even then his contract has not prevented the Twins from signing anyone or retaining anyone. It is not the reason that the Twins were bad for so long.

Pujols - He signed his contract at age 32. Your data certainly suggests that this is a bad idea. Getting Stanton at age 28 to enjoy the 4 peak years before Pujols signed his contract is a great idea. Signing Stanton after he could opt out is a poor idea.

Cabrera - fantastic deal (2008) despite many people at the time expecting it to be awful long term. Stanton isn't quite MCab but this is the upside of the deal. MCab's new contract = LOL

ARod - fantastic deal

Analyzing this the exact same way as you but getting rid of players that either sucked (Howard), had disproportionate defensive WAR (Ellsbury) or were recovering drug addicts (Hamilton) shows that this could be a huge win for the team that acquires him. I am not even sure that I would include a catcher as a comparable due to the wear and tear and increased chance of an injury. FWIW - I don't even regret Mauer's deal. It hasn't prevented the Twins from signing or retaining players.

The absolutely most important part of making this deal is finding players that will be at or near their peak for the time that the Twins have their young core under guaranteed team control. And increasing payroll substantially to add pitching. It certainly doesn't make any sense to add Stanton if you are rolling out last year's staff.

If a team has a chance to acquire an elite player that is 28 yrs old then they have to jump at that chance because they aren't available often.

Is 20162017 2018 the year that a good pitching prospect is truly blocked by 5 good pitchers in the starting rotation?

Offseason (noun) - a time to propose trades assuming opposing GM's can't do the same basic analysis